A portion of the elevated section of tracks for the California high-speed rail system is seen along side highway 99 in Fresno, Ca., on Wednesday Feb. 1, 2017.

Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle

It’s getting harder by the day to love high-speed rail. The vaunted train is scaling back sharply, now reduced to a relatively short stretch through farm country with the full route years in the future. The delays and cutback in ambition have led some critics to call for an end to the project.

Yet the need for an alternative to the carbon-intensive modes of transportation is not going away.

This is a state with overcrowded freeways, dirty skies and an appetite for innovation. Trains running at 220 miles per hour in under three hours between the Bay Area and Los Angeles can knit together California’s population centers and spur economic growth. That’s an alluring goal.

But hard reality is weighing on this dream as never before. Costs, lawsuits and building challenges had earlier obliged rail officials to cut construction back to just 165 miles of track running between Merced and Bakersfield in the Central Valley. But now even that smaller plan will cost $1.8 billion more than expected, bringing the budget to $20.4 billion. Inflation, extra work and a nest egg in case of more surprises are the reasons cited.

That’s not the full picture, though. The construction package is built on state bonds and cap-and-trade pollution fees, but expected federal money is in doubt, given the Trump administration’s dislike of anything with the word “California” attached. The finances remain shaky.

Rail planners expect super-fast trains to run within nine years. At one point, the high-speed rail planners had a contingency plan to get started with diesel trains — a dispiriting and environmentally destructive compromise — if the funds did not materialize. But a spokesperson for the authority insisted Friday that the funding is now in place to move forward with a fully electrified high-speed system.

The system’s flickering fortunes aren’t new. While former Gov. Jerry Brown was a cheerleader, pushing a shovel at a valley groundbreaking, Gov. Gavin Newsom is decidedly reticent. He dodged a firm commitment during his run for office and served notice within weeks of taking office that he wanted a stripped-down version.

This week he suggested that next year’s state budget will have less money for outside consultants to advise on rail planning, another nudge at getting results with leaner spending. Newsom still needs to offer a full version of his thinking on high-speed rail and whether he supports pushing the full 520-mile route. San Francisco’s Transbay Center was designed to handle bullet trains while Newsom was mayor.

The latest plan for stripped-down service is already inflaming state legislators leery of putting more money into the project. High-speed rail was protected by Brown but isn’t getting the same political insulation this year. A longtime foe, Fresno Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson, wants the project halted even though it will run through his district.

Shearing down the system remains the best option for now. The idea will have a chance to prove itself and show California what modern rail service offers. But high-speed rail can’t afford many more failed promises.

This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.